I am going to speak against the motion, as we all know that global climate change have been occurring from much before the existence of human beings.
It is not duly dependent on fossil fuels, other factors such as deforestation also have a big hand in causing global warming. By disturbing the natural cycles we have caused a lot of pollution.
By stopping the usage of fossil fuel is not the correct way to combat global warming.
If we put a ban on use of fossil fuel, the old economy will rupture , the developing nation and middle eastern countries with large oil reserves will lose their main source of income and revenue.
It will affect the common people too as most of car use fossil fuels as their source of energy.
80% of world energy comes from coal which is the most important fossil fuel .
It will leave us with no electricity. Without electricity the lifestyle of every person will be affected.

1. Your comment about climateange existing before humans exsted is too general and it doesn't negate the fact that we to havea part that plays into the climate phenomenon. Ultimately, we are the most corrosive being on this planet--and this is a fact no one can deny. We distroy forests so we can have buildings.

Fossil fuel is the major factor in climate change and global societal unrest. Deforestation is a result of the developments that demand additiona resources fueled (if you will) by fossil fuel.

Fossil fuel is not irreplaceable. It is just that we (the powers to be) have chosen not to develop other forms of energy, such as sun, water, corn, etc.

There is nothing natural about sending millions of tons of toxic gas into the ozone.

Let us stop the usage of fossil fuel and allow our bright minds to develop new ways to sustain our planet. People are not inately dependent on fossil fuel, we made ourselves dependent. Untimately, as creatures of survival, we would find alternatives if fossil fuel is no longer available.

Common people are not dependent on fossil fuel (for their transportation) they are dependent on our technological advances. If cars are not affordable due to the cost of fuel, then bikes would easily become the new form of transportation. Thousand of of employers who cannot afford to have their employees miss work would develop new ways of completing projects possibly those involving remote video and virtual networks so that transportation is not necessary.

80% of world energy can easily become something else. All it takes is the majority of people choosing a different direction. That is all. We as a society do this all the time. Example, the world trade center, farming, Gold standard

Let me explain to you about the economies which will be affected if the use of fossil fuel is banned
1) India and china are one of the developing nation of the world. They require fossil fuel for the factories made by foreign products companies and many local companies, benefiting their economy. They are second and first most populous countries of the world , so they require a transportation. This system of transportation in both countries is directly or indirectly dependent on fossil fuel.

2) Venezuela and middle eastern countries have large known oil reserves. Their economies are directly dependent on oil export. So if we ban oil export in those countries, their economy will rupture.

3) if the above two countries stop the export of oil to other countries. Those countries will suffer from lack of fossil fuel , required by the people for use in industries and transportation.

You are wrong my friend not trying take points from here just trying to get the perspective of both sides.
I don't think so I require any points from here as I have still got got many points for our debate in the next round.

Another absolute debate. How about we take out "the only way" and do "stopping the usage of fossil fuel is one way to combat global warming" or "reduction of fossil fuel is a significant measure to reduce global warming."